Talk:Bonnie Garland murder case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article needs to be rewritten to remove the POV bias in such sentences as The relegation of the victim to the background and the protective shield thrown up by a supposedly moral community around an unrepentant killer has become a more familiar theme in contemporary jurisprudence, but the Garland case foreshadowed others in which the victim was transparently put on trial. RickK 18:41, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

So do it. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

On April 28, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bonnie Garland murder case. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 14:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article should be kept so that everyone can see how biased the jurors were in this case. They say money talks.... and this case just backs up that statement in every possible way. How can the jury not realize that this man is a murderer. He killed Bonnie and he was NOT insane. This was not a case of 2nd degree murder but rather a case or pre-meditated FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Richard Herrin searched the house for something to hurt Bonnie with and he had every intention of killing her. He's a psychopath. He got the hammer, wrapped it in a towel, left it outside her bedroom door while he went inside to make sure she was still asleep. When he verified that she was still asleep he went back in and smashed her head in with the hammer. How is that not pre-meditated murder???

Well, of course it should remain as it is: the complaint about neutrality came from someone clearly unfamiliar with the case. (That was months ago, of course, so perhaps someone should remove the notice...not me, since I wrote the thing.) I suppose I was handicapped by actually having read the books on the case. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essay moved from article

The following, added by anon 68.111.9.7, seems to address a straw man, and seems based on personal analysis. If references could be found that someone of significance has alleged that Herrin was released "early", it could be condensed and added back to address that (attributed) concern. - Nunh-huh 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'Richard Herrin was not released "early" as many seem to believe. Based upon the sentencing law in force in NY at the time, an indeterminate sentence of 8 1/3-25 years could be meted out as follows.

Scenario 1: Inmate serves 8 1/3 years and becomes eligible for parole. Parole is granted. Scenario 2: Inmate serves 8 1/3 years and becomes eligible for for parole. Parole is denied. A sate is set for the next possible parole consideration, no later than 2 years hence.

Scenario 3: Inmate is denied parole at established increments from the Parole Board and reaches 2/3 of his maximum term. In this case 2/3 of 25 years. Inmate serves 16 2/3 years and is released on what NY called conitional release (C.R.)

The quirk of NY law at that time is that "good time" comes of the back of the sentence (1/3 of 25 years, unless the inmate loses that good time through tickets, lock-ups, or new crimes.)

Herrin appears to have reached his C.R. date, and thus did not receive any benefit of his association from supporters or or burdens from detractors.

According to his personal account of future plans,Mr. Herrin planned to attend Law School in L.A. upon release to study International Law. His name does not appear on the CA Bar Associations's list of practicing attorneys.'